1986/08/19City Ha!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
ABS~T:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL HEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER: Bob DeSio
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor P. J. Moore, Trinity Lutheran Church, Anaheim Hills, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 33,646,216.84, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. §6X-372 and 86R-373 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Pacific National Insurance Company (File No. FIO)
for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about April 21, 1986.
697
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
b. Claim submitted by Joy E. Meneses for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 6,
1986.
c. Claim submitted by Wallace Ward for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 22, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Farmers Insurance on behalf of Vishvana Date, for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
April 8, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by American International Adjusting Company for
property and bodily damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about March 28, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Adrian CarabaJal for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 25, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Marlo Salazar for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 25, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Advance Fire Protection Incorporated for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 13,
1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, minutes of July 16, 1986.
b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission, minutes of June 25, 1986.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report dated July 1986.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board, minutes of July 17, 1986.
3. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Calmark Development
Corporation to allow encroachment of second story balconies over the westerly
five feet of a fifteen foot public utility easement for water facilities at
706 West Broadway.
4. 123: Authorizing Arterial Highway Financing Program Agreement No. 1181
with the County of Orange to provide financing in the amount of $700,000 to
widen Anaheim Boulevard between Cypress and Lemon Streets, Phase III.
5. 123: Authorizing A~reement No. 07-5055, Supplement No. 32 with the State
of California (federal funding in the amount of 5105,827) and City provided
funds in the amount of 520,973, to provide handicapped access ramps (Part II),
on various off system streets.
6. 123: Authorizing the Library Director to execute an agreement with the
Digital Equipment Corporation at a cost of 52,342 per month to provide service
to computer equipment used in connection with the Circulation Control System
698
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
for the term September 16, 1986 through September 15, 1987.
7. 155/164: Approving the Negative Declaration for the construction of a
storm drain in West Street between Vineyard Avenue and South Street.
8. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Graffiti Removal in an amount not to
exceed $30,000 to remove graffiti in various target areas, for the term August
18, 1986 through June 30, 1987.
9. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the
amount of 527,878 for two traffic controllers and one police panel.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Builders Specialty Company in the amount of
512,402 for 26 Bradley Turret-Tainer freestanding combination paper towel
dispenser and open top disposal units, Model #260, in accordance with Bid No.
4346.
11. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-372: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (West Street Storm
Drain Improvement, Vineyard Avenue to South Street, Account Nos.
25-791-6325-E1530 and 52-606-6329-05775; and opening of bids on September 18,
1986)
12. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-373: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ILEJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE
31ST DAY OF JULY, 1986, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PEARSON PARK AMPHITHEATER
COURTYARD. (Rejecting all bids for the Pearson Park Amphitheater Courtyard,
Account Nos. 25-820-7103 and 16-820-7130)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-372 and 86R-373 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
132/142: ORDINANCE NOS. 4749 AND 4750 - WASTE COLLECTION - DISPOSAL
DEFINITIONS - SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS AND SUPERVISION OF
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE: Mr. Bob DeSio, Maintenance Operations
Manager, answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the
proposed ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4749 and 4750 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4749: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMAMENDING SUBSECTION
.060 OF SECTION 10.10.10 AND SUBSECTION .030 OF SECTION 10.10.30 OF CHAPTER
10.10 OF TTTLE 10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL.
699
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4750: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
10.10.020.020 OF CHAPTER 10.10 OF TITLE 10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE.
123: ATTORNEY SERVICES AGREEMENT - KINKLE~ RODIGEK AND SPKIGGS: City
Attorney Jack White briefed the Council on his memorandum dated August 7,
1986, recommending approval of the Attorney Services Agreement with the law
firm of Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, and authorizing the City Attorney to si~n
the agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the City Attorney to execute
an Attorney Services Agreement with Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, to provide
assistance and outside counsel in certain actions and proceedings, as
recommended in memorandum dated August 7, 1986 from the City Attoraey.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
127: PROVIDING FOR REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR ClTY MEASURES FOR THE MUNICIPAL
ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4~ 1986: Providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments
for City measures submitted at Municipal elections on November 4, 1986.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that an argument in favor and in opposition
had been received relative to the City fireworks measure to be voted on at the
November 4, 1986 Municipal Election. In researching the matter, it was not
clear whether rebuttal arguments had been authorized. She, therefore,
prepared a resolution that will provide for rebuttal arguments.
Councilman Bay stated since two arguments had been submitted, one in favor and
in opposition to fireworks, he does not see any reason to have rebuttals in
addition to the arguments.
Councilman Overholt stated at the time the Council took action that resulted
in authorizing the arguments both pro and con he does not know whether the
Council indicated there was going to be an opportunity for rebuttal
arguments. Not having said that, if they now allowed rebuttals, that will be
changing the rules in the middle of the process. If he had been the author of
one of the arguments and under the impression there were not going to be any
rebuttals allowed, he would have written his argument differently.
Discussion then followed among Council Members and staff wherein it was
determined that allowing rebuttal arguments for City measures was a precedent
in the City in the past. The City Clerk also confirmed that nobody had
objected relative to allowing rebuttal arguments.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-374 for adoption, providing
for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at the
Municipal Election November 4, 1986. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-374: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY
MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
700
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-374 duly passed and adopted.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 10969 AND 10970: Submitted by Boulevard
Development, Inc., for an extension of time to Tentative Tract Map Nos. 10969
and 10970, to establish a 62-1ot, 62-unit RM-2400(SC) subdivision on property
located on the east side of Stage Coach Road and Camino Grande and to
establish a 62-1ot, 62-unit RM-2400(SC) subdivision on property located on
both sides of Hackamore Lane (southwest of the intersection of NohlRanch Road
and Serrano Avenue).
The City Planning Commission granted Tentative Tract Nos. 10969 and 10970, to
expire August 22, 1987.
No action was taken by the Council.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4743 - CONSIDERATION OF PERMITTING CHURCHES IN THE CANYON
INDUSTRIAL AREA AS A TEMPORARY USE: Amending Section 18.61.050.600 of the
Code, to permit churches by Conditional Use Permit in the Anaheim Canyon
Industrial Area. This matter was discussed and continued from the meetings of
July 22, August 5 and August 12, 1986, to this date. An amended first reading
of the ordinance was offered by Councilman Bay at the meeting of August 12,
1986.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Bob Fulton, Interchristian Fellowship.
He is in favor of the proposed Code amendment but not with the
3-year limitation. At the present time, there is only one other
piece of property designated for churches in Anaheim Hills and a
road will not be built to that property for three to four
years. Existing churches in the Anaheim Hills area can only
accommodate 3,400 filled twice a day. Many pastors have called
him and the feeling is that the Anaheim Hills area is
underchurched while at the same time finding property for
churches is difficult. They would like to be able to work with
the City Council and City staff and possibly developers to
determine what can be done about the situation three to five
years from now. Long-range planning is important to them but
the amendment proposes only a 3-year temporary use. It is not
long enough to raise money and put a project together. The
language ties the provision down tightly because after three
years there can be no extensions at all. He wanted to know if
there was some way if they found themselves in a pressing
economic condition at the end of three years if there might be a
provision for a one year extension instead of such restrictive
language.
Councilman Pickler stated the majority of the churches felt they
701
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
could live with the 3-year limitation. Although it is
restrictive, it is being done on purpose because they are
dealing with an area designated to be used for purposes other
than churches. The ordinance, as it stands, will work to the
benefit of all concerned.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Fulton is the only one
requesting more than three years. It is tightly written for a
good reason. First, churches were not permitted at all in the
Canyon Industrial Area which is not the same as other industrial
areas. It is in Project Alpha and a part of Redevelopment. The
tax increment funds generated from the area fund redevelopment
projects throughout the City. It is crucial that the area
remain industrial for the purpose of creating jobs and bringing
in the tax increment. She is concerned that a year extension is
being requested even before the proposed ordinance has been
passed.
Councilman Bay stated the consensus of the Council, when they
first considered the issue, was that the Council was not going
to allow churches in the northeast industrial area. He feels
the Council has "bent over backwards" to make it possible to
give churches at least a 3-year use of property never intended
to be used for church developement. Providing three years out
of any ten for church use was done to preclude misleading
anybody. The Council wants it clear that churches have only
three years in that area and during that period an all-out
effort by the church be made to have plans underway for securing
property and building a permanent church. It is not the intent
to let churches gain a foothold in the industrial area for a
permanent location. To start talking about modifying and
extending the time, in his opinion, will be misleading the
churches. It is intended as a temporary use only.
Mr. Fulton stated they understand the proposition but he was
Just trying to tie it to the issue of being able to gain
assistance from the City to plan beyond three years and to help
them acquire property for church use.
After further Council discussion and questioning of Mr. Fulton
and staff, Councilman Overholt stated that as a government body
there were many reasons why the Council and the City could not
get into the business of working with the churches but could
individually encourage church development. The Council's
decision is one of deciding that the ordinance is such that it
will not negatively impact the industrial situation in the
Canyon Industrial Area and givingMr. Fulton's people and others
an opportunity to take advantage of the situation.
Pastor Bryan Crow, 6069 Morning View Drive.
He reemphasized that there were many who were pleased with what
the Council had done in considering the proposed Code
702
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
amendment. He understood Mr. Fulton's problems but in the
balance, he is pleased and would like to see the ordinance
adopted today.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4743 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4743: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.61.050.600 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE TO
PERMIT CHURCHES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE ANAHEIM CANYON INDUSTRIAL
AREA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4743 duly passed and adopted.
169/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4748 - CREATION OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS: Adding new
Section 17.08.433 to the Code, for creation of Benefit Districts to finance
public street improvements.
Councilman Bay stated he had not had a chance to study the proposal to the
extent he would like. He thereupon moved to continue adoption of the
ordinance for one week. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White explained for Councilwoman
Kaywood that there was no urgency involved and he saw no problem in continuing
the ordinance for one week.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
144: EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING: Councilman
Bay reported on the subject meeting which took place on Thursday, August 14,
1986 at Santa Ama City Hall. Action was taken to discuss the parochial
differences of each City in a proper forum in the next few months. Today he
was going to be sigming the agreement for £ormally hiring the new Director,
John Meyer, Jacksonville, Florida, who will be Director of both Authorities in
the beginning, the Eastern/Foothill and the San Joaquin Corridors. Mr. Meyer,
who was present at the Thursday meeting, will be permanently on board on
September 22, 1986.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would
be held to confer with the City Attorney regarding:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No 40-92-46.
b. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
(b) (1).
703
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth moved to recess and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:59 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:47 p.m.)
175: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 85-15A: In accordance with application
filed by Savanna Associates, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment
of a portion of an electrical easement located approximately 100 feet westerly
of Knott Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-347, duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 18, 1986 was submitted, recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-375 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 85-15A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-375: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 100
FEET WESTERLY OF KNOTT AVENUE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-375 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-16A: In accordance with application
filed by Arthur M. Lopez, public hearing was held to abandon an electrical
easement which runs across the middle of property located at 5030 East
Crescent Drive, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-346, duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 21, 1986 was submitted, recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed th~ public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
704
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-376 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 85-16A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-376: AK ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AN ELECTR/CAL EASEMENT WHICH RUNS ACROSS THE MIDDLE OF
PROPEKTY LOCATED AT 5030 EAST CRESCENT DR~VE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-376 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2822:
APPLICANT:
John Kocyla,
P.O. Box 9832
Anaheim, Ca.
92802
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a church in a converted residential
structure on CL zoned property located at 406 West Vermont Avenue, with Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted).
PLANNING COM~SSION ACTION: Resolution PC86-164 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2822; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of July 19, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 8, 1986.
Posting of property August 8, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 8, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 7, 1986.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWER TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCILWOMAN KAYWOOD:
Pastor Jeff Backer, agent, 1801 North Christine Place, Fullerton.
The church is located at 406 West Vermont Street. It was
previously located in a community room at 201 West Bastanchury
Road, Fullerton, for approximately one and one-half years.
Services started the first week of August. They waited until
the Conditional Use Permit was approved. On the last day of the
appeal period, he called the City Clerk's Office and was told
that no one had appealed the Conditional Use Permit, which was
an error.
705
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl.
She explained the miscommunication that took place relative to
the CUP. When the call was received, her staff looked for an
appeal letter but instead a Council Member had set the matter
for a public hearing at the Council meeting earlier in the day.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is concerned with the testimony of the Moose Lodge. The
Lodge has had a number of fundraisers with as many as 200 people
in attendance. She is concerned that although the requested
parking waiver was deleted by the applicant, that parking will
become a problem in the neighborhood.
Pastor Backer.
He talked with the owners of the Moose Lodge. They will work
with the church and are happy to have the church located there.
There is enough room and plenty of parking. There is sufficient
parking not only on the lot, but also on the street both to the
east and west. There is also an agricultural building on Harbor
Boulevard that has parking that they do not use on weekends. A
parking study was done by the Traffic Department which
determined there was sufficient parking for the use. The
sanctuary building seats 75 people and he does not anticipate
there will be more parishoners than that.
Mayor Roth.
He attended the dedication ceremony and there is more than
sufficient parking available. The Moose Lodge is not used on
Sunday morning, Sunday night or Wednesday evening, the times
when the church will be conducting services and their prayer
meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None. (It was determined by a show of hands, however, that
approximately 10 people were present in the Chamber audience in
favor of the CUP).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Bill Gabaldon, 330 West Vermont.
He is not totally against the church but with the development
taking place in the area. There are units being built next to
him with one parking space per unit. (It was later confirmed by
staff that the requirement for parking involving those projects
being built on Vermont is 2.5 spaces per unit. No parking
waivers had been requested). The acreage in the back is also
all going to be developed. Vermont is a major street and the
Council should consider carefully what is occurring on that
street. There is going to be more traffic. The church will be
picking up additional membership. Even though there is parking
provided for the church, members are parking on the street. He
then broached a concern relative to apartment owners renting out
706
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
parking space to others thus precluding tenants from parking in
spaces that should be theirs.
Gus Bode, 726 North East Street.
There was a great deal of traffic in Anaheim which needed to be
controlled with left-hand turns.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-377 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2822, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-377: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2822.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay expressed his concern that the CUP had
no time limitation or occupancy limitation. If there was a stipulation that
occupancy would be a maximum of 100, he would be glad to support the
resolution.
Council discussion then followed relative to the placement of a time or
occupancy limit on the CUP at the conclusion of which no such limits were made
a part of the resolution offered.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Eaywood,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
0verholt,
Bay, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-377 duly passed and adopted.
The Council then determined that the following public hearings to consider
modification or termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1703 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 2525 would be heard as a combined hearing since they involved
the same business and location.
179: PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1703 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2525:
707
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1703: To consider modification or termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, to permit resource recovery and recycling
operation on ML zoned property located on 6.4 acres at the southeast corner of
Frontera Street and Newkirk Road, with Code waivers of minimum front setback
and required block wall.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2525: To consider modification or termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2525, to expand a resource recovery and recycling
operation including an automobile dismantling business with wholesale and
retail sales of auto parts on ML zoned property located at 3200 Frontera
Street.
EIR FINDING: A negative declaration status was previously approved on both
Conditional Use Permit No. 1703 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2525.
HEARING SET ON:
An order to show cause hearing as to why Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1703 and
2525 should not be revoked was moved by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of
July 15, 1986 and passed unanimously by the Council setting today as the date
and time for such hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 8, 1986.
Posting of property August 8, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 8, 1986.
Special notice was also mailed to the principals via Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, on July 29, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF REPORT:
Submitted was report dated August 12, 1986 from Annika Santalahti, Assistant
Director for Zoning, recommending termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos.
1703 and 2525 pursuant to provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Section
18.03.092.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated August 18, 1986 had been received
from Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, attorney for the applicant, requesting
that both items be continued to Tuesday~ August 26~ 1986.
Floyd Farano, attorney, Farano & Kieviet, representing Orange
County Steel Salvage, explained since the letter was written,
there have been new developments. Two weeks ago 23 samples were
taken from the refuse on the Orange County Steel Salvage
property under the supervision and with the cooperation of State
Agencies. The tests are to determine the presence and extent of
PCB's in the shredder waste. The samples were sent to the State
Health Department Laboratory at the University of California at
Berkeley. He personally talked to one of the two chemists
assigned the responsibility for testing the samples, Dr. Bob
Stevens. Dr. Tom Lee is the other chemist. The direct number
to their Lab is (415) 540-3003. He also invited the Council to
call the laboratory if they wished. Tests on the first five
7O8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
samples have been completed but the computations have not been
completed at this time. Dr. Stevens did not think they would be
ready by next Tuesday but they might be. Further, it is his
client's desire and request that the issue of modification or
termination of the CUP's be separated into its component parts.
One of the problems is the presence of shredder waste being
stacked too high and permission to have it there. The rest of
the issues seemed to revolve around tree planting, parking of
cars, the crane, etc. His client would like to tender a hearing
to the Council today on all issues other than the presence of
the shredder waste with that issue delayed until the testing of
the samples for the presence of PCB's has been completed. He
explained for Councilman Overholt the reason for requesting a
bifurcation of the hearings is because the side issues, in his
estimation, are minor issues and ones that can be easily
corrected. His client has indicated he is willing to correct
them. With the complexity of the PCB and shredder waste issue,
he does not want it clouded by any other issue.
Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that the entire matter
was dependent upon the successful conclusion of the shredder
waste issue; Councilman Pickler agreed that the most important
issue was the shredder waste. For his part, if Orange County
Steel Salvage stops shredding, he will be willing to grant a
continuance. Otherwise, the shredder waste would continue to
grow every day.
Mr. Farano stated he could not tell the Council that his client
will stop shredding because theyhave contractual arrangements.
If they are forced to stop, that was another issue. He also
confirmed for Councilman Overholt if the request for dividing
the hearing into two parts was denied, his request would then be
to continue the entire matter for one week. However, it might
be wise to consider a two-week continuance due to the
possibility that it was uncertain results of the testing were
going to be available.
Councilman Bay then posed questions relative to the method of
testing of the samples whether the test results were going to be
averaged relative to the presence of PCB's or not; Philip
Anthony, representing Orange County Steel Salvage, stated that
the decision on whether or not the sample test results were
going to be averaged had not yet been determined.
John Poole, Code Enforcement & Supervisor, then reported that he
had numerous conversations with James McNalley, Program Manager,
Toxic Substance Control Division, California Department of
Health, Los Angeles, during the past two weeks who indicated at
first they would have test results and try to appear before the
Council this coming Tuesday. He (McNalley) called back today
and explained that the test results would not be available for
two weeks and at that time he would appear before the Council if
they wanted him to do so to give those results.
709
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated the question troubling him, if the tests
proved conclusively that the waste did not contain unacceptable
levels of PCB, would that give Orange County Steel Salvage the
carte blanche right to dump the waste into Orange County
landfills.
Mr. Anthony answered no. They are actively engaged with the
County but even more actively with the Regional Water Board to
try and determine under what requirements the shredder waste
could go into local land fills. In addition, they are exploring
a number of other possibilities of landfills of many other types
and locations in southern California with a potential of at
least 20 or more. Many are private landfills which without the
PCB problem could very likely take the shredder waste. They are
also pursuing the possibility of where to take the shredder
waste if there is a PCB problem. It would require approval and
direction of the Environmental Protection Agency to do it.
Floyd Farano interjected and explained in spite of a lot of
emotion surrounding the issue, it appears that Mr. Adams'
efforts in trying to successfully dispose of the shredder waste
are being opposed by the government, both State and County.
Those agencies have neglected and refused to work on the problem
to solve it. The only governmental agency which has tried to
work on and solve the problem is the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Roth emphasized that the Council is very much aware of the
need and importance for recycling. However, they are concerned
not only about the shredder waste, but also the other conditions
imposed which are being violated under the CUP. It was
difficult to continue to take the responsibility of having the
possibility of toxic materials in the City while at the same
time the problem was continuing to escalate in the form of
additional shredder waste. It is disconcerting to have to
consider putting a businessman out of business particularly when
that business is so important. However, he is concerned and has
a responsibility to his constituents to do something about the
situation.
G.orga Adamm, Jr.
He understands the Councilts concern but by shutting down the
plant all the Council is going to do is back up appliances all
over the street. He has pictures that confirm that situation.
Cars are starting to get dumped into landfills as is. Taking
action to shut down Orange County Steel Salvage is not going to
reduce toxins or so-called hazards in the City. If the test
results show unacceptable levels of PCB's he does not feel they
are in any position to ask the City to allow them to continue.
If PCB's are found in the shredder waste, it becomes a major
issue and the government is going to have to figure out what to
do with the automobiles. Their plan will be to finish up their
contracts and shut the plant down. If PCB's are not found, they
710
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
have a way to dispose of the trash in an expeditious manner.
They are also getting down to the wire and are running out of
room on the property. The pile is not a threat to the citizens
of the community. The State has the responsibility and the City
should not be made the "heavy".
Councilman Bay stated the testimony they receive in two weeks
was not going to be the final answer. At this time he would
like the Council to consider first moving to deny the request to
divide the hearing as requested and that all the issues involved
in violation of the CUP's be discussed at one hearing since it
is all relative. Secondly the Council can then look at the
information received today and take a reasonable amount of time
and continue to that time to get what they expect to be data
from a laboratory which, dependent on how the data is presented,
could involve more time. They are also going to have to face
the issue of whether or not the shredding should be stopped in
the interim.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request that the public hearing be
divided into two parts and that all issues be considered together at the same
public hearing. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing to consider
modification or termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1703 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 2525, to Tuesday, September 2, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he was going
to vote against the motion. The shredder waste pile continues
to grow every day. He feels there is a place for the waste to
be dumped but Orange County Steel Salvage has not taken the
initiative to do anything about it. If cars end up in the
street perhaps that will force the State's hand. He is not
convinced there are no PCB's in the shredder waste and until he
can be shown in writing that there are no PCB's they had to stop
the shredder waste pile from growing. They are going to keep
processing and shredding to the point of no return. The only
way it is going to stop is to pull the CUP's. The Council will
not get a definitive answer in two weeks.
Mr. Poole confirmed his latest conversation with Mr. McNalley
was that he would be present two weeks from today and give the
Council a report on whether each sample that has been taken, all
23, is in violation of state standards of PCB, lead or other
chemicals.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she has been discouraged with the
continuing delays and the fact that there is a problem between
the Health Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.
She has also read conflicting reports about penetration of (PCB)
into the soil. If it has penetrated 18 inches, she is very
concerned. The situation must be resolved and cleaned up.
711
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
She hopes they will have an answer in two weeks because she will
not approve another continuance.
City Attorney Jack White explained that today's hearing could be continued and
the request for rehearing scheduled for consideration next week (Re: request
for rehearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2756 which was dem~ed by the
Council on July 15, 1986 Resolution No. 86R-335) could be continued for one
week so that all items would then be heard at one meeting. The rehearing
request will be on next week's Council agenda and the Council can take action
at that time to continue it so that all three items can be considered together.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance. Councilman Pickler voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items previously announced by the City
Attorney. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(3:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:30 p.m)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:31 p.m.)
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
712